High Court upholds transfer order affecting multiple officers within same city. Tribunal decision overturned.

The High Court upheld the transfer order of the Union of India affecting multiple officers, including the second respondent, from the Exemptions Section to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within Chennai. The Court found the transfer was not penal in nature as it was a general order without specific reasons. Emphasizing that the transfer was within the same city, the Court deemed the second respondent not aggrieved. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the transfer order was overturned, and the writ petition was closed as the second respondent had already been transferred to Patna.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of transfer by Union of India before Central Administrative Tribunal.

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed by the Union of India against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside the transfer of the second respondent, who was working as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) in Chennai. The Ministry had transferred about 20 officers, including the second respondent, by a general order dated 03.11.2014. The Tribunal allowed the second respondent's application challenging the transfer, leading to the Union of India filing the writ petition.

The transfer order was a general one affecting multiple officers, including the second respondent, moving him from the Exemptions Section to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within Chennai. The order did not provide any specific reasons for the transfer other than administrative reasons. Despite this, the Union mentioned complaints in their reply statement, which the second respondent used to argue that the transfer was penal in nature. The Tribunal also found that the officer passing the transfer order lacked jurisdiction.

The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's finding that the transfer was penal, emphasizing that it was a general order affecting several officers and did not specify any reasons. The Court highlighted that the transfer was within the same city, so the second respondent could not be considered aggrieved. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to set aside the transfer order was against established legal principles.

Subsequently, it was mentioned that the second respondent had been transferred to Patna, rendering the current petition moot. The Court closed the writ petition, noting the second respondent's new transfer. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

---